Talk:Zhang-Suen thinning algorithm: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
(Transformed?!) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
::I'm considering what happens to this individual cell (not necessarily its neighbours). As far as I am concerned, the situation I describe above is the calculation for Step-1 of the first iteration. Nothing has changed (i.e. been removed) before this: all changes are stored, and applied `after` the analysis. So the step-1 rule should apply to cell '?'. And it should be blank (by my interpretation of the rules). But it ain't. |
::I'm considering what happens to this individual cell (not necessarily its neighbours). As far as I am concerned, the situation I describe above is the calculation for Step-1 of the first iteration. Nothing has changed (i.e. been removed) before this: all changes are stored, and applied `after` the analysis. So the step-1 rule should apply to cell '?'. And it should be blank (by my interpretation of the rules). But it ain't. |
||
--[[User:Tim-brown|Tim-brown]] ([[User talk:Tim-brown|talk]]) 19:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC) |
--[[User:Tim-brown|Tim-brown]] ([[User talk:Tim-brown|talk]]) 19:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
You are right the table given of P1 to P9 in the task page is actually transformed but ins such a way that the output is thinned in the same way (but with an offset possibly). I am actually calculating with: |
|||
<table border="1"> |
|||
<tr><td>P7</td><td>P6</td><td>P5</td></tr> |
|||
<tr><td>P8</td><td><b>P1</b></td><td>P4</td></tr> |
|||
<tr><td>P9</td><td>P2</td><td>P3</td></tr> |
|||
</table> |
|||
I've got an inverted vertical axis it seems. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 22:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:32, 15 October 2013
Could someone help explain why, in the example image the following transformation occurs (in the periods separating the R and C, and after the C):
..... ..... .###. -> ..... .#?#. ..#.. ..... .....
Surely the the cell labelled '?' will be culled at step 1:
- It is black with 8 neighbours - B = 5 (2 <= 5 <= 6) - A = 1 - At least one of P2 P4 P6 is white (P6 is white) - At least one of P4 P6 P8 is white (P6 is white)
Why isn't it whitened at step 1?
--Tim-brown (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I expect that there are removals of some of those surrounding cells before it gets to your '?' cell which affects the final outcome. --Paddy3118 (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm considering what happens to this individual cell (not necessarily its neighbours). As far as I am concerned, the situation I describe above is the calculation for Step-1 of the first iteration. Nothing has changed (i.e. been removed) before this: all changes are stored, and applied `after` the analysis. So the step-1 rule should apply to cell '?'. And it should be blank (by my interpretation of the rules). But it ain't.
--Tim-brown (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
You are right the table given of P1 to P9 in the task page is actually transformed but ins such a way that the output is thinned in the same way (but with an offset possibly). I am actually calculating with:
| P7 | P6 | P5 |
| P8 | P1 | P4 |
| P9 | P2 | P3 |
I've got an inverted vertical axis it seems. --Paddy3118 (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)